Northeastern University International Relations Council
Fall Executive Board Meeting #1
Date: September 7, 2014 9:07 PM
Location: Google Hangout
Present: Cam, Sarah, Phil, Rawan, Elise, Evan
Absent: -Selection Process






First impressions:
o Consensus among e-board that HDs should be excluded from the selection
process
o Initial differences: Appeals process (Rawan and Evan); “bucket”
assignments to HDs whereby HDs would be assigned their conference
team but have a significant role in determining the make-up of specific
committees (Elise)
Elise:
o Suggestion that e-board rep can simultaneously be an HD
o Divide selected travel members into different “buckets;” a good
compromise because HD’s are included to some extent
 Phil comments that benefit of total HD exclusion is that not all HDs
always meet every single point in criteria i.e. mentorship
capabilities, able facilitator on site, etc. Additionally, conflict of
interests and bias tend to be prominent in HDs during the selection
process
 Elise responds that all HDs must already be mature enough to
impartially judge. HDs must be included in picking out specific
committee-pairings considering they are “experts” of their
conference and recognize the unique needs of each committee.
Moreover, it’s too time consuming for selection committee to
concern itself with minute conference details
 Sarah comments that HDs have a limited amount of time to select
and need to better focus their energy on preparation and research
 Elise responds that there’s ample time for preparation because
selection is happening early in the year
Phil suggests that e-board makes committee decisions and HDs would make
comments later on
Elise: E-board needs to be careful and must frame it in a way that welcomes HDs
to make suggestions and changes
Evan agrees with Elise in wanting to keep HDs involved.
o Evan suggests that HDs have a strong “feedback” role, Rawan agrees
Phil: the e-board draft of committee assignments would essentially be a final
draft but it is open to alterations by HDs.




Sarah: E-board would hand HDs their teams. If they’re overwhelmed by a pair,
they have the option to voice concerns
Elise: allow HDs submit recommendations before selection committee of the
kinds of qualities they want to see in each conference and committee
Phil: Presents another alternative
o Have HDs see draft of the selected travel members during the process so
we can immediately revise based on immediate concerns
o Evan adds that selection committee would email them a roster and give
them 24hrs to respond.
o Elise: not worth the coordination efforts.
o All e-board agree it isn’t logistically possible
Final consensus:
o HDs will have a preliminary role of suggesting what qualities they’d like to
see in their travel team
o HD is assigned a travel team for the conference
o HD is involved in process of selecting pairings for specific committees
o HD will receive the list before it’s announced to all of IRC to comment and
adjust the list with any concerns
 They will have a number of hours to respond with any concerns. If a
significant change must be made, the selection team will meet again
to adjust
Make-Up of the Selection Team




First impressions:
o Cam: Selection team is extremely important to IRC . The selection team
must commit very few errors in selecting the travel team
o HDs will not be included
o Small size: four slots to avoid gridlock
st
1 slot: E-Board Representative
o As decided by current constitution language i.e. e-board will select and
vote on a representative
o Phil suggests that they rescind HD application if chosen to be e-board rep.
Another alternative is not telling HDs what conference they’re assigned to.
nd
2 slot: Faculty Advisor
o Current: Phil
rd
3 slot: BoD Appointee
o Selection would be done internally by BoD
o Candidate will have served at least one term in BoD
o Must meet all eligible criteria of an HD i.e. mentorship, leadership, no
disciplinary misdemeanors, etc.
 Action: e-board will brainstorm language of criteria
o Phil suggests that e-board compiles a list of max. 5 eligible candidates that
meet the minimum requirements and then BoD will vote on it. E-board

would check with the candidates to see if they’re interested and then
present list to BoD
o Concern: would BoD be able to decide on one person? It’s a very large
voting body. Cam responds that they have no choice
th
4 slot: Senior member or Alumni
o Phil: must be somebody who is fiercely impartial so alumni is best bet
o Elise responds that all members of the selection team are expected to be
impartial anyway. Additionally, it is unrealistic to expect that IRC alumni
would be able to devote a lot of time to IRC. Overall, alumni should be a
last resort if e-board cannot think of any other candidates
o Elise suggests that alumni can be a part of the selection pool but that it is
not exclusively set for them
o Phil disagrees because of concerns that future e-boards would keep
discussing make-up of selection team
o Elise responds that we’d be too dependent on a limited pool of eligible
alumni; it is highly restrictive, rest of e-board agrees
o Sarah: Phil could create a list of senior members/alumni and e-board
chooses one
 Phil and Cam: e-board would have too much control over make-up
of selection committee
 Elise and Evan stress dual participation of e-board and advisor
o Elise suggests another e-board member to fill the 4th slot. Cam responds
that, although e-board members have the right qualifications, e-board
representation would be excessive
o Criteria:
 Highest levels of involvement and longevity
 Someone with significant amount of experience with preference
given to an alumni and would be able to bring a separate voice to
the selection team
 Emeritus presidents, seniors in their final semesters, +1s
o Verdict:
 Senior member or alumni
 Phil will decide on eligible alumni because he is still
connected with them
 Advisor would select alongside senior member of leadership,
starting with e-board (Line of succession: President, then EVP, then
BoD, etc)
 A person would be “skipped” if they’re already an HD or eboard rep
 E-board will make informal suggestions of who they’d like to see
chosen
Miscellaneous


Emergency BoD meeting this upcoming Sunday, September 14th at 4PM in
the PoliSci conference room
Regular BoD meeting on Tuesday, September 16th at 7:30 in the PoliSci
conference room